After an 11-hour deliberation, a Danbury jury found William C. Gardiner, a Connecticut home builder, innocent of claims of “torturous interference” in a $2 million lawsuit brought against him by a former partner, John Freeman.
The monthlong trial began in late September in Danbury Superior Court. Only three of the eight violations alleged by Freeman were tried, while the rest were resolved between the parties out of court. The terms of those agreements were not released.
The legal action related to Gardiner”™s attempt to develop a Greenwich parcel owned by the Indian Spring Land Co. The Rockefeller family founded Indian Spring almost a century ago and it is still owned by primary heirs. The company is one of the largest vacant landowners in Greenwich.
Indian Spring began developing its land in the mid-1990s with the help of the law firm Cummings and Lockwood. Freeman was then a partner at the firm, but soon left to become executive vice president and counsel at Indian Spring. This according to Gardiner”™s law firm, Bridgeport-based Cohen & Wolf, which also reports: In 2001, Freeman entered into partnership with Gardiner to develop Indian Spring-owned land along Glenville Road under their company name Gardiner and Associates L.L.C.
After disagreements between the two parties, Freeman terminated the partnership and sought to buy land involved in the development, according to Cohen & Wolf. Soon thereafter, Indian Spring claimed a verbal agreement between Andrew Rockefeller, the then-president of Indian Spring, and Freeman promising Freeman the ability to buy Indian Spring land. Freeman”™s position with the company was subsequently terminated and Rockefeller resigned under fire, also according to Gardiner”™s lawyers.
Freeman was involved in lawsuits between Indian Spring and Andrew Rockefeller, according to Cohen & Wolf, while he also initiated legal action against Gardiner. Freeman sought $2 million in damages for “interference with a land sale contract and employment agreement,” severance and compensation for attorney fees against Gardiner under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which he lost.
Â
